I think this "hacking since teenage" crap is overrated. I started programming C++ in middle school, but I don't think it makes me a better programmer than someone that took it up in college. I don't think it matters what girls did in high school. Every other mature industry favors formalized training over looking at what people do in their free time. If you said that the best bankers are the ones that did trading simulations as teenagers, instead of ones that received formal training at Morgan Stanley, or that the best engineers are people that built model rockets instead of those that received formal training at Lockheed, people would laugh at you. But the same sort of sentiment flies in the tech world. The industry fails to separate the profession from the cultural tendencies of people in the industry. I think its just a sign of the immaturity of the profession and will disappear in time.
I think this "hacking since teenage" crap is overrated.
Wholehearted agreement. I didn't touch a computer, other than the ones in the typing lab in high school, until I got my own PC for college. Here I am, the better part of two decades later, doing rather well for myself, and with colleagues and management at my last three jobs all having said I'm the best at what I do of anyone they've ever worked with.
Yeah, yeah, anecdata, but one thing anecdata can legitimately do is provide an existence proof against a universal claim like pg's.
It's not a universal claim. It's an observation of tendencies. Given the choice between two fresh college graduates where one had been hacking since middle school and the other only started in college, who are you likely to choose all else being equal?
This isn't rocket science. People who start hacking at a young age and continue very likely have a passion toward the discipline. People who have a passion for programming likely care more about it. People who care more about it are probably better.
Does this mean that the guy who didn't start until later can't be better? Not at all.
I was a converted music major who took up programming sophomore year because I realized I was just not a very good musician, so I went to the career center at school, took some goofy test that asked things like "would you prefer to collect rocks, wood, or stamps?" And out of that the answer was "programmer". This from a guy who had to ask a lab monitor how to save my music history paper on a floppy the previous semester. It's worked out ok so those psychologists weren't totally full of it.
I think it's "AND" not "INSTEAD OF" that he's targetting.
There are many things where putting more time in productively will help you get better. Similarly, wide ranges of experience need time.
At 22, the fact that I programmed since 13 probably made me better than those that just had the BS I also had. Now, at 43, I don't those years from 13-18 are a differentiator.
Those people you mention may be great (skilled) at their job (profession) but they are no hacker. Are they enthusiastic enough to do it outside their standard hours? Maybe some.. and those will be the ones that grew up doing this since childhood.
My problem with this idea is that it puts too much emphasis on finding people who already have certain skills, instead of on who would be most effective if formally trained. I think this is a haphazard way for an industry to cultivate a workforce.
@rayiner the problem is you are assuming formal training is as useful or better than self-teaching in a case where the opposite is likely true. Tech moves fast, programming requires constant learning and updating of ones skill-set. The ability (and desire) to self teach is far more useful than rote memorization in a classroom spoon-fed environment. Self-education is a skill just like any other that needs practice. During those extra 10 years the child hackers are pecking away they aren't just getting a leg up on practicing the craft of programming they are also getting a leg up on practicing self-teaching.
Well I also disagree that tech moves fast. There is a lot of mindless churn, but software companies do themselves a lot of prejudice chasing buzzwords when computing and networking principles are in fact very stable and long lived. And in any case, it makes a lot more sense to formally train in relevant new technologies than to have ad hoc self learning.
I'd say this whole article is dishonest and trying to stir controversy in that the tweet at the very top clarifies the comment.
The writer then spends the entire article talking as if that correction had never happened then at the end offhandedly mentions the correction but dismisses it entirely. The whole site screams of linkbait anyhow.
If a lot of start ups won't hire someone that hasn't been hacking for a long time thats not an oppressive statement so much as an observation of trends.
I believe that sex segregation behaves a lot like other segregation issues. It can happen by policy and with ill intent, but also completely without.
Often the blame is put on the "recruiting" side of things. Are girls drawn into CS classes? Are they encouraged to participate? But the bigger question is when and how are they discouraged? When and why do they leave the "track" towards "hackerdom" or the software engineering workforce.
Maybe we should become more mindful of the situations in which we are assuming a girl/woman can't be interested in programming. Maybe we should become more mindful of when we make it uncomfortable for them.
I thought the very direct point he was making is that there's an small number of women who are exposed to CS at a young age and that's something that has to change.
Professional basketball, football, concertist, etc... Professions where only the very best can succeed. Maybe you can learn piano at 21 and go on to become a renowned performer, but there's usually a correlation with learning things early. Might have something to do with the 10,000 hours thing.
Its ridiculous to compare programming to professional sports. There are less than 500 NBA players, in a sport probably millions of people in the US can play adequately. They're the 0.01 if not 0.001%. Talented programmers aren't anywhere near that rare.
Pretty much all athletic, dance & music jobs. Most of my fellow students at Caltech had a history of doing projects in their field of interest as teens.
But tech jobs in general don't expect you to have been doing it since early teens.
You can perfectly get a job in some Big Co. even if you only started programming in college.
But startups in general (and in this case, YC) all want to hire the top 1%, so isn't it natural they are biased at the people with the most experience, because they believe that they are better (which is not necessarily true)?
I'm not sure if the fact that I'm completely neutral towards Graham's comments shows that I'm some bigoted backwards abortion of this generation who isn't up with the times, that I'm hopelessly jaded, or that people will overreact about anything.
Given that they link the Adria Richards case as an example of sexism in tech, I'm having a hunch towards the latter.
I don't understand how the writer of this piece can't wrap his head around the logic here. That someone doing something for 10+ years is probably going to have a better understanding of it than someone doing it for significantly less time. This goes back to that whole 10K hours to mastery concept. The other bit boils down to passion/motivation. Someone who's been geeking out on computers every day since they were a kid likely did so because they really enjoy it. Whereas someone who started doing it in college because someone said "this is where the money is at" is likely to be less passionate about it. To me this all makes perfect sense.
As I see it PG was saying:
1. Hacker != CS degree nor a Learn to Code in 24hrs book,
2. Focus on teaching software engineering in schools vs colleague to instill a hacking culture early on, not during the gold rush years.
What is wrong with that? Nothing. It is perfectly sound and clear. Media has a crappy way of blowing things out of proportion especially around this sexism in tech. Someone should cut the media fuel lines so we can just resume and hack in peace.
Seems like nothing more than a misconception on the parts of Valleywag et al. I suspect an essay will be forthcoming to help lend clarity to the issue.
pg completely misses the whole social programming/gender stereotype aspect of why boys might be more attracted to computers at 13 than girls, but at the same time, "the wire" is clearly taking his comments and trying to slant them toward a specific, sarcastic end.
It's pretty tabloid to take some ignorant comments and try to demonize someone for them. The article also accuses him of creating justifications when his actual words were trying to explain a possible fix (and admitting that he didn't know what would actually work).
But his general point is spot on: you have to grow hackers, you can't just create them out of thin air. More work should be done to get young girls into hacking (not just more CS grads).
Can someone familiar with how the site actually works explain what has happened here? The story isn't marked with "[DEAD]" or whatever but it doesn't appear to be indexed on the main site at all anymore - I looked on the first half dozen pages. Has it just somehow been censored into oblivion?
- HN has an automatic flamewar detector algorithm - it monitors the tone of discussion on a post and if it's too negative, it gets knocked out from the front page
- it could've also been flagged too many times
I don't think it's been censored. it must be buried deep
